New Mexico statute says utilities can only backbill 6 months for their own errors, but PNM is trying to go back 18 months on a residential account claiming "late discovery." Has anyone successfully used the 6-month rule against PNM? Their tariff seems to contradict state law and I want to make sure I'm reading this right before I file with the PRC.
PNM New Mexico - 6 month limit actually enforced?
Idaho has similar issues with Idaho Power trying to stretch limits. The key is whether state law trumps tariff language. In most cases, statute controls over utility tariffs. New Mexico's 6-month rule should be binding. File that PRC complaint and cite the specific statute number.
Minnesota has 24-month limit but utilities try to get around it by claiming they "just discovered" old errors. The discovery date should be when they reasonably should have known, not when they finally bothered to investigate. Push back on their timeline - when did the usage pattern change? When should they have noticed?
Arkansas has 12-month limit and Entergy actually follows it pretty well now after getting burned by the PSC a few times. The "late discovery" excuse usually doesn't fly if they had access to the data all along. Meter readings, usage reports, everything's automated these days - hard to claim ignorance.
Ohio is 24 months for utility error but Duke Energy tried the same "late discovery" argument on one of my cases. PSC rejected it and said the clock starts when the error occurred or when they should have reasonably discovered it through normal business practices. Automatic meter reading systems eliminate most discovery delay excuses.
Pennsylvania is interesting - we have 4-year general limit but only 12 months if the utility had the information and failed to act. Sounds like your PNM case might fit that exception. If they had the meter data showing problems and didn't investigate promptly, argue for the shorter limitation period.
Thanks for all the input. Found the smoking gun - PNM's own records show they flagged this account for "high usage variance" 14 months ago but didn't investigate until last month. Their delay, their problem. Filing the PRC complaint tomorrow with their own documentation as evidence.
Great detective work! That's exactly the kind of evidence that wins these cases. Utilities can't sit on red flags then claim late discovery. Nevada has similar protections - if they had notice of potential problems and didn't act, the limitation period starts from when they should have investigated.
Excellent case study here. This is why we always request utility internal records and communications. They often document their own negligence without realizing it. The "high usage variance" flag is smoking gun evidence that they knew or should have known about the issue much earlier than claimed.